These cases seem like classic examples of government's abuse of power now institutionalized by Kelo. The uncontested beneficiaries are the developers. The municipalities actually may not benefit. Take the Kelo case which set off this land grab, for example:
In September 2009, the land where Susette Kelo's home had once stood was an empty lot, and the promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues had not materialized. The land was never deeded back to the original homeowners, most of whom have left New London for nearby communities.[2] In addition, in September 2009, Pfizer, whose upscale employees were supposed to be the clientele of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project, completed its merger with Wyeth, resulting in a consolidation of research facilities of the two companies; both companies had a major presence in southeastern Connecticut for many years, meaning that only one facility would likely survive the merger. Ultimately, Pfizer chose to retain the Groton campus on the east side of the Thames River inherited from Wyeth, closing its New London facility in late 2010 coinciding with the expiration of tax breaks on the New London site that would have increased Pfizer's property tax bill by almost 400 percent.
Kelo, is the rare Supreme Court case in which I side with the conservatives. The idea that potential tax base should drive eminent domain decisions is crazy. There are projects where it ought to be possible to remove a lone holdout property owner, but only when the project is an actual public good, not a developer's project. I have The Power Broker at home, but haven't yet read it. I need to.
No comments:
Post a Comment